I am Not a Brain: Philosophy of Mind for the 21st Century

I Am Not A Brain, by philosopher Markus Gabriel, goes after, hammer and tongs, and with wit and humor, reductionist accounts of mind and concludes, as I concluded a long time ago, that such "fields" as neuro-philosophy, which reduce all mental states to brain states (really, brain chemistry), are what he calls, following Thomas E. Schmidt, "terrifying theory-golems." In an age in which our spirits are being sucked out of us by consumerism, commercialism, materialism, determinism (i.e., the view that holds that free will is an illusion), physicalism, and "nothing-but-isms" of various kinds (including in politics) this book is more than a breath of fresh air. It is a counter-offensive against all reductionisms at a time in which the natural sciences, prematurely, arrogantly, and perniciously, are claiming for themselves the ur-vocabulary that explains all, even consciousness itself, and are asserting that all reality is within their domain. This view is as deadly (and deadening) as it is false. It is the new positivism of our time, and its attraction has led to the deadening of philosophy as a field of study, although that is not its worst offense. Yet, it is no wonder that philosophy departments struggle. Indeed, on the door of many departments the sign "No Wonder" should be hung, with the tag line "Abandon All Soul, All Ye Who Enter Here." The "terrifying theory-golems" were also attacked by other philosophers over the years, among them William James, Henry Bugbee, Edward F. Mooney, and Bruce Wilshire.Gabriel holds the chair in epistemology at the University of Bonn. The book is very accessible to non-philosophers, however.

I am an admirer of the Anglophone tradition in philosophy: a tradition that gets underway with Francis Bacon, that includes Brits, Americans, Australians, and post-Raj Indian philosophy. I think this tradition has been of unprecedented clarity and creativity (in that order of importance).That said, I am aware that there are other traditions. And that one of these, one with which the Anglophone tradition has a very contentious relationship, is loosely called the "continental [European] tradition.] " It dates to the Cartesian rebellion against late scholasticism. And it certainly includes this book.I bought this book as one of my periodic attempts to get a glimpse of what is going on with the continentals. It served that purpose. I didn't have any higher expectation for it than that, so I was not disappointed.The gist of the book is that a human being is not a brain, not a hunk of matter deterministically following physical law. Nor does the author see a Self as a transcendent soul, briefly attached to an earthly body. What is a third possibility? Apparently that language and self-awareness allows rare material/biological creates to attain freedom. An interesting hypothesis for an argument but our author doesn't seem to get far beyond mere statements and restatements.

What sometimes seems amazing in contemporary philosophy is the ability of a philosopher to write in readable and comprehensible ways. Gabriel does this. One does not have to accept all his conclusions to deeply appreciate his stiletto treatment of common arguments that attempt to reduce mind to brain, divide mind and brain into two separate entities, and so on. Whatever one's position is on the subject, this is a valuable discussion.

Gabriel responds to the contemporary scientistic worldview that would reduce our minds to mere brains and our wills to mere chains.

I felt that if this author really wanted to spread his word he would have written this book with that intention. Instead this book is written for fellow philosophers. I have read many books on the brain ranging from Ramachandran to Pinker. This book was not worth the work to complete.

It’ a good and pleasant experience for me to buy this book from you!

Since the dawn of recorded philosophy, humans have noticed vast differences in the objects of their conscious experience. Among the most prominent differences appears between Matter and Mind (including thoughts and mathematical reasonings). M. Gabriel’s explanatory book continues the long enquiry into those issues, and he concludes the Mind – perhaps our most human quality -- is best not thought of as predominantly Material. Specifically, he notes that the complexity of our Images (and the ability to act on such images) “cannot be conceived only in the language of neurobiology” (p. 28 in my edition). To Dr. Gabriel, this clearly means the human mind is not purely biological, and cannot be just a ghostly epiphenomena or an emergent quality, either. He understands biological processes are a necessary part of “who” "we" “are,” but the Mind also includes unpredictable cultural and affective conditions, and believing that biology (or physics) alone will ever adequately explain them all is simplistic wishful thinking, akin to any belief system. For example, Dr. Gabriel argues biology importantly, cannot account for Freedom. The biological brain is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the incredibly rich phenomena we call the Mind.This is more than just an academic exercise. Dr. Gabriel’s argument against what he calls “neurocentrism” is that such a belief -- that everything neurological can be explained scientifically -- does not even correspond to modern scientific experience. Unfortunately, he generally fails to emphasize another critical reason -- namely, how we treat others (and ourselves) largely depends on our view of the mind. If we simplistically act as if a human is nothing more than a collection of meat and molecules, someone will eventually feel justified treating it equally simplistically (and that usually ends, practically speaking, with indifference or hatred toward life in general and many human lives in particular). Materialist ideology, even more than the usual whipping boys like religion, has betrayed the human spirit and has cost lives.After a fine introduction Dr. Gabriel elaborates on his arguments that neurocentrism is defective. He seems to center these arguments on standard deductive reasoning, arguments and assumptions made by various philosophies (notably German idealism, existentialism, modernism, New Realism,and Marxism), reductio ad absurdum as a way to discredit a purely biological mental identity, abstraction, and the inviolability of human self-dignity in the Western model. His chapters follow a reasonable track from a discussion of consciousness and self-consciousness through self-definition and finally to Freedom – and this Freedom perhaps best characterizes the supra-biological Mind, according to my understanding of Dr. Gabriel. The author believes formal philosophy, with its focus on logical construction and investigation, has something to offer in this discussion (although the relative value of purely philosophical conclusions is up for debate).I thought the book makes a nice readable attempt to address a vital topic from a philosopher's viewpoint, and I personally agree with its overall conclusion, but thought it had some notable drawbacks. I was never convinced the abstract methodology or epistemology demonstrated the hard disciplined edge of a skillful, practical observer of the mind. The style was generally coherent and readable although sometimes a bit arcane and circular (as in its discussions of self-consciousness). The author does a reasonably good job of explaining things (and most of his source material reflects this explanatory framework), but explanation without enough hard data to back up findings means the book seems speculative and quasi-metaphysical, and it often seems sort of a sophisticated grasping at straws. The book seems to have set up an easy target, and I detected few of the refined arguments modern neuroscientists have used to justify an essentially neurocentric belief. The book's palette also seems too limited; nearly all the book's arguments and sources are from academic philosophy, and I hoped to see more of all the rich contributions that disciplines like cognitive science, mindfulness practice, or information theory could bring to this important debate. Despite the book’s length, I think he leaves out too much (as noted in the second paragraph above). Indeed, the book’s length works against it and you may have a briefer and more productive time with a good Google search of terms like "identity theory,” "new realism," or “mind-body identity theory,” or a search for articles in sources like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Philosophy Now. The book seems kind of a strange duck -- not technical enough for a specialized audience but perhaps too philosophical and narrowly focused to appeal to a general one. Whether or not you believe that Freedom is the alpha and omega of philosophy (the book's concluding sentence) is up to you, but one could counter-argue that freedom without responsible use can be a dangerous waste, and that character development -- not freedom -- is the highest gift which philosophy can help give. Finally, the volume offers too little in the way of authentic explanations of living a good and decent life -- the hallmark of a good philosophy book, IMHO.Am I a brain? Perhaps observation will provide more definitive answers to this complex question than speculation.

Reading this book you'll easily get acquainted with all the moden trends of Philosophy, all very well presented and debated by the author.Mr.Gabriel avoids "taking sides"and rather prefers to point the debilities of each and all the theories but meanwhile still leaving the hope that we are not condemned to existencialism or even worse to skepicism.

このタイトルで、著者の立場も本のテーマも察しがつくだろう。今までの本から予想できる方向に舵を切ってきたという、なんというか、ほっとした気持ちがある一方、論じ方はちょっとずれている（しかしそれも危惧した範疇）、という感じだろうか　材料はいわゆる意識の哲学で、もちろん意識あるいは心を脳内過程に還元する立場を否定するわけだ。ドイツ観念論がどうのこうのやられるよりは、こうして現にある哲学の問題にまっすぐ向かって、当然かくあるべき結論に至ることは喜ばしい。ただ、なぜ世界は存在しないのかという本で、存在論を語る前半は面白いが、科学にとらわれないことの人倫的価値をいやに道学者臭くぶち上げる後半はもう一つかなと思う向きも多かったはずで、これもまた変なところに説得力をゆだねている　著者がこう述べている例ではないが、たとえばだ、人が死という絶望にとらわれないために輪廻転生は存在する、あるいは救いの神を信じるべきである、なぜならその方が豊かな人間性を取り戻せるからである、と説得力たっぷりに論じられて、はいそうですねしんじることにしましょう、とはならないと思う。それで済むなら哲学書には向かわない。著者のアンチ唯物論あるいはアンチ科学至上主義には、なんとなくそういう中途半端さがありはしないか。著者にとっては科学外部のことの正しさが当たり前というか、前提そのものになっているので、その部分の正当性を納得させる必要性をあまり感じていないのかもしれない。でも、哲学って納得させる手続きのことだよね。非常にたくさんの意見がさらっと扱われているので、一つ一つについて追及が物足りないというか、違う考えの人を引き込む力がこれでは出てこないだろうなって思う　もう一つ、自然科学の外側の価値を顕揚する哲学のほとんどに言えることだが、科学への態度に腰が据わっていないと感じる。もちろん強大すぎる相手であり、敬意を払うべきであるにしても。私が好意を持って読んでいるマッギンやネーゲルは怖じることなく科学の不足部分を内側から論難している。むろん思慮が浅い部分もあり、当然批判も多いが、逃げてはいない。この点でガブリエルはあいまいだ　私即ち主観としての意識は脳科学に回収しきれないということを証拠立てる彼の論法は、主観そのものは意識の対象からはみ出るという、この分野では昔から語られている形をしている。私はこの論法に接するたび、ラッセルのパラドックスを連想してしまうのだ。正しいのかもしれないが、うまく騙されているようでもある。あるいは単なる知的なパズルであって、現実とのかかわり合いは明瞭ではない。そういう気がするのである。実際これで科学主義者が諦めたりはしなかったことを、私たちは知っている。脳科学で意識を十全に語りえないとしても、宇宙を語る分には差し支えないと人々は考える。ゲーデルの定理が数学の全体を否定するものではないと、正しくも考えるのであれば、当然この結論に至ることも不思議とはならない　いろいろ意見はあるだろうが、唯物論（主義？）を論駁するためには、部分的ではない、もっと全面的な対決が必要である。少なくとも相手は世界観を標榜しているわけであって、それに対して「世界なるものは存在しない」では済まないはずだ。この点で日本の大森荘蔵は相対性理論の欺瞞を的確に指摘しており（しかし残念ながら採録されないし、彼の弟子たちも積極的に触れないのは、誠に情けない無知ぶりである）、かつ科学的な時空間概念の不十分さもうまく説明している。弟子たちは大森の、どちらかというと価値の薄い部分を引き継いでいる。新実在論だか脱ー超越論だかより、余程読む価値があると思うのだが、これは脱線　いろいろな意見を総花的に扱っているので、意識の哲学についての入門書にはなるかもしれない。ここ数十年についての、ある程度の見通しを与えてくれる。著者はまた、何々主義と名付けるのがうまく（私が知らないだけで公式の名称かもしれないが）、不思議とそれだけで理解が進んだ気になる　映画やテレビドラマ、小説の類を引いてわかりやすくしてるつもりなのは最近の流行なのか。新しい哲学が多用するこのやり方は、しかし本体の発想が比喩にすぎない哲学のありようを露わにしているだけではないかと私などは思ってしまう。ここはマイナス　私はここに挙げられた大半の作品になじみがない。対して、扱っている哲学書はほとんど読んでいる。サブカルの引用が説の理解を助けるのではなく、説がサブカル作品の内容を推量させるという、変なことになっている。だから私がこれを入門書してわかりやすいと思っても、もしかしたら読みにくいと感じる人があるだろうことも、一応言っておく　　最後に、著者が標榜するつもりであるらしい新実存主義だが、この言葉はコリン・ウィルソンを連想させ、余りよろしくない。ガブリエルが彼のようにオカルトに傾斜していくとは思わないが、学術的な正確さを失うきっかけになることを憂慮する。レッテルは論争の手段として相手に貼るものであり、自ら名乗りを上げるものではない。その伝で言えば、今世紀の哲学はほとんどが失格ってことだね

I enjoy Markus Gabriel's books, they are a excellent example of the revival of German philosophy in the 21st century, which is providing a refreshingly different take than the Anglo-Saxon one, obsessed as the latter has become over the last century with materialism/physicalism and the dogmatic obsession with the unassailable veracity of the scientific method.Gabriel, as he did in his previous book 'Why the World does Not Exist' gives short shrift to the ideology of materialism- in this specific case, that the brain itself and it alone through material processes alone produces consciousness- and demolishes it's dogma with precise, calculated expertise. We are clearly more than meat robots and he shows very well that these assumptions many people take for granted i.e. our consciousness is nothing but a by-product of material brain function are in fact, when thought through carefully with philosophical logic and insight, quite incoherent as well as having quite fundamental, often detrimental influences on how we view ourselves as thinking, acting human entities within society.Having established this in the first third or so of his book, where to then? Herein lies to a certain extent a weakness in the work- Gabriel seems unwilling to pin his speculations firmly to the mast, and one can't help but feel he is trying to have his cake and eat it by rejecting the physical nature of conscious human being, but not really willing to go too far into the territory of what the operative nature of our consciousness is, or from where, if anywhere, it originates.This is understandable in some ways because it is such a speculative field, and one consistently gets the feeling Gabriel is fond of speculating, but for me, he too often gets close offering us a glimpse of the result of his fine, well informed thinking on these areas, then seems to pull away, which is a shame.The author is of course part of the 'New Realist,' 'object-orientated' new wave of philosophical thinkers which is capturing the imagination of those in the world of philosophy in the 21st century, and perhaps for those more deeply versed in the thinking of that field are able to more fully grasp Gabriel's position than I at the present time, but I nonetheless felt a little unsatisfied at times reading the book. That aside, it did not affect my overall enjoyment of the work and the satisfaction felt at absorbing the clarity of thought and argument from the author. The chapters on Consciousness, Self Consciousness and Freedom are excellent, and stand alone as great work in their own right and although I have to admit I found his previous, much recommended book 'The World Does Not Exist' a more satisfyingly complete work, this one equally demands to be read and savoured.

This is a challenging read if ever I found one, I do not necessarily agree that it is a difficult academic read and to be consider by the non-philosopher or non-academic with care and caution necessarily but it is a book which requires effort on the part of the reader, I did find that I had to reread some paragraphs, sections and complete chapters to properly understand them or better appreciate them. However, it is not a dull or arduous read, and I love books which are on topics which I'm very interested in (and I am very interested in philosophy of mind, particularly as contrary to the sort of reductive "self-illusion" pop science or pop psychology/neurology there have been lately).The chapters are all well researched and the book itself has great supporting notes, index and contents, it is easy to find sections to reference, with regard to pace and style of the narrative I have commented on that already but I also note that other reviewers have cited long sentences from the text and I do think that is representative of the narration over all. The book is more challenging than other pop psychology books, or articles I have read online, including The Self Illusion, but I would also say that I enjoyed it more as a result.I would agree with another reviewer that it is perhaps more optimistic or enjoyable a read to begin with than it is in the final chapters and conclusion (there is a contrast between the introduction and conclusion in that respect), however, I also think this is a matter of subjective opinion and not every reader is likely to share this view. A very good book on very recent developments in thinking in the field of philosophy of mind, at last an alternative to reductive "individual as brain" and "the self is an illusion" thinking.

「自然科学的な法則/単一の原理では人間科学をスパッと切ることはできない」ということをガブリエルは言いたいのだと思う。「自己成就的予言」の亜種の主張をしている、と言えるかもしれない。心脳同一説を否定するのはいいけれど、「根拠は？」と思えて仕方がない。ガブリエルの頭の中にはこれまでの哲学の議論が入っているからいいのかもしれないが、「脳撮像では思考を見ることはできないよね」（大意は間違っていないはず）と言われても、「技術が進歩すれば、ニューロに還元できるのではないか」という思い込みも捨てがたい。私みたいな安直な批判を退けるためにも、映画やドラマのような卑近な例に頼らずに、もう少し入念に、従来の議論を整理しつつ、オリジナルな論を展開してほしかった。